----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin Gandall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Details of this report first appeared in Fortune magazine last month. Today's Observer article is a more sensational recycling of the already sensational story which Fortune reporter David Stipp broke last month. And the Observer account misses the main point of the exercise. As reported by Fortune, the Pentagon study assumed a "midrange case" of abrupt global warning, characterized by plunging temperatures in the Northern hemisphere, droughts, storms, flooding, desperate illegal migration from poorer regions, border raids, and the possibility of full-scale warfare between alliances of nuclear-armed states over scarce food, water and energy supplies. Note, in particular, the reference to illegal migration. The study's concern is less scientific than military, less the causes than the effects of an environmental catastrophe. Stipp is, in fact, quite explicitly says climate change should be treated as a "national security" issue to protect America's borders and resources. Significantly - and presuming the reporter is reflecting the views of his editors who reflect the views of the Fortune 500 - there is little emphasis, despite the frightening apocalyptic scenario, on any urgent preventative environmental measures, beyond tightening fuel emission standards for new passenger vehicles. It would appear the Pentagon planners invited Stipp in for a chat and leaked the Marshall study to him in a bid for further resources. Must be getting close to budget submission time in Washington. ====================================== UNDERSTANDING INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY: A STRATEGIC MILITARY PERSPECTIVE Colonel W. Chris King November 2000 AEPI-IFP-1100A Army Environmental Policy Institute http://www.aepi.army.mil/Publications/king.A.pdf
